Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are too self-righteous for me to deal with. You don't know the genetic predispositions of all children. You are basing your half truths on half baked scientific experiments that are done by the very people who have the most to gain. There are few independent studies that have no stake in the business of Big Pharma. This whole thing is such a sham, it's incredible that you can't admit to it, or at the very least to the possibility that there is crookedness involved. This is a red flag that your thinking is slanted in a big way probably because you want me to be wrong in a big way, so that you can continue to discredit my father in a big way. The reason this issue is not going away is that children are being harmed whether you are able to admit it or not.

Great rant, 8/10, empty of facts, would read again.

This is not a rant.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Let us play - spot the bad argument! How many did PG manage to pack in a small paragraph this time?

Quote:

You are too self-righteous for me to deal with.

Ad hominem

Quote:

You don't know the genetic predispositions of all children.

Implies you need to know the genetic disposition of all children in order to spot an unsupported claim.

Quote:

You are basing your half truths on half baked scientific experiments that are done by the very people who have the most to gain.

Appeal to conspiracy

Quote:

There are few independent studies that have no stake in the business of Big Pharma.

Appeal to conspiracy

Quote:

This whole thing is such a sham, it's incredible that you can't admit to it, or at the very least to the possibility that there is crookedness involved.

Appeal to conspiracy mixed with accusations of close-mindedness: accusing an interlocutor rather than dealing with the failings in your own arguments.

Quote:

This is a red flag that your thinking is slanted in a big way probably because you want me to be wrong in a big way,

Appeal to motivation rather than the merit of an argument

Quote:

so that you can continue to discredit my father in a big way.

Appeal to motivation from a different thread even!

Quote:

The reason this issue is not going away is that children are being harmed whether you are able to admit it or not.

Begging the question and emotionally loaded language. The whole debate is about the merit of claims that children are being harmed: this statement pretends that it is proven the children are being harmed, which it is not.

Extra irony points for blatantly exposing your bias right after accusing another of being closed-minded, which is a form of bias.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I guess we should err on the side of caution where mothers are concerned until all the data is in. I mean we just do not know how far this mother-harm goes or all the possible effects mothering has on the system.

Actually NO. Observation of all species tells us that there is an instinct in mothers to protect their young. There is always the exception, but that does not negate the instinct to protect that most mothers have. Your reasoning is so shoddy, it's laughable Dragar.

Observation also tells us vaccines prevent potentially lethal and damaging diseases. There is always an exception, but that does not negate the protection from diseases that vaccines confer. Your reasoning is so shoddy, it's laughable PG!

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let us play - spot the bad argument! How many did PG manage to pack in a small paragraph this time?

Quote:

You are too self-righteous for me to deal with.

Ad hominem

Quote:

You don't know the genetic predispositions of all children.

Implies you need to know the genetic disposition of all children in order to spot an unsupported claim.

Quote:

You are basing your half truths on half baked scientific experiments that are done by the very people who have the most to gain.

Appeal to conspiracy

Quote:

There are few independent studies that have no stake in the business of Big Pharma.

Appeal to conspiracy

Quote:

This whole thing is such a sham, it's incredible that you can't admit to it, or at the very least to the possibility that there is crookedness involved.

Appeal to conspiracy mixed with accusations of close-mindedness: accusing an interlocutor rather than dealing with the failings in your own arguments.

Quote:

This is a red flag that your thinking is slanted in a big way probably because you want me to be wrong in a big way,

Appeal to motivation rather than the merit of an argument

Quote:

so that you can continue to discredit my father in a big way.

Appeal to motivation from a different thread even!

Quote:

The reason this issue is not going away is that children are being harmed whether you are able to admit it or not.

Begging the question and emotionally loaded language. The whole debate is about the merit of claims that children are being harmed: this statement pretends that it is proven the children are being harmed, which it is not.

Extra irony points for blatantly exposing your bias right after accusing another of being closed-minded, which is a form of bias.

You know what the motivation is in this thread. You're part of it.

__________________"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein﻿

﻿"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Mothers have a God given instinct to protect their children (barring the few that are emotionally ill) that goes far beyond what these "scientific" studies can prove. If there were no dangers to vaccines, mothers would not be fighting the most important fight of their lives. They would willingly stand in line to get their children vaccinated. But they have done their due diligence and know there is more to this issue than meets the eye. Mothers now are armed with more information and they are not going to be bamboozled any longer. Unfortunately, when something goes wrong the manufacturers are not held accountable. It is the families that will have to live with the injuries their children attained for the rest of their lives.

Awesome post - classic peacegirl. Slightly weaselly (maternal instinct is kind of magic unless you have to explain why you think so and in what way it is magic), full of meaningless generalities about mean corporations, essentially irrational (if vaccines weren't dangerous, there would not be anti-vaxxer mums and their magic maternal instincts!) and all delivered as a manipulative emotional appeal (won't anyone THINK of the BABBIES!).

And of course we still do not know if the lower infant mortality rate in the Nordic countries and Switzerland could have something to do with their higher vaccination rates. Strange! Because it was a source of concern about the possible dangers of vaccination before?

I guess you didn't read what I posted. Show me where these numbers have dramatically changed in 7 years.

There is a new children’s book available that teaches children that they don’t have to fear childhood illnesses. It is entitled “Melanie’s Marvelous Measles” and can be purchased HERE

Mass hysteria has broken out among the provaccine with ideations of banning the book due to its perceived danger. See article HERE

So what are the arguments in favor of shedding the mass fear that has been ingrained since the 1960s when the vaccines became available, prior to which measles was an acceptable childhood illness? In the developed world, mortality was reduced over 98% before the vaccine came along and before antibiotics were available. In England and in the United States, the chance of dying from measles had dropped to 1-2% by the 1930s.[1]

Immunology textbooks[2] point out that children who can’t make antibodies, usually get through measles as well as children who can, because it’s the innate or cellular immune system that is the key for measles (or any first time disease for that matter) not the humoral or the antibody system.

One of the most disconcerting discoveries in clinical medicine was the finding that children with congenital agammaglobulinaemia, who could make no antibody and had only insignificant traces of immunoglobulin in circulation, contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune. No measles anti-body was detectable in their serum (the water part of blood minus clotting factors and cells).[3]
The cellular immune system is dependent on good nutrition for optimal functioning. Bad nutrition comes in two forms: Plenty of food but all empty calories or not enough food of any calories at all. In the United States, studies have found that vitamin A deficiency is not just a thing of the past, but that even children with normal diets were vitamin-deficient upon measles infection. This 1992 study in California children showed that 50% of hospitalized measles cases had vitamin A deficiency. But there was also vitamin A deficiency in 30% of the sick controls who did not have measles. None of the uninfected controls showed significant deficiency.

We studied 20 children with measles in Long Beach, Calif., and found that 50% were vitamin A deficient. This frequency among presumably well nourished American children supports evaluation of vitamin A status as a part of acute management of measles in the United States.[4]
So we could say that any child that lands up in a hospital in USA, or any developed country is suffering because their parents need educating about proper nutrition, or because their doctor is totally clueless about the nearly 80 years of proven benefit of vitamin A supplementation in acute measles.

Take note that measles vaccines also deplete vitamin A.

Previous studies have shown excess mortality and immune abnormalities among girls immunized with high titer measles vaccine 2 to 4 years after immunization. . . our results showed that serum vitamin A concentrations were de-pressed after measles vaccination, irrespective of whether it was the monvalent or combined measles vaccine. [5]
In parts of Africa, measles rampages precisely because there is no nutrition worth talking about. Are vaccines the answer?

And, measles infections can be beneficial. Dr. Peter Aaby et al. and his team found that children who survived natural measles had a much higher survival rate from all other infectious causes than other children. Children who had had the measles vaccine, had a lower rate of survival and the worst group in terms of overall survival from infections, was the group which had neither measles vaccines nor measles disease. That’s published research.[6] Their compromise conclusion was that it would be necessary to use the measles vaccine forever, because of the value of the vaccine in protecting against all cause mortality in the absence of actual infection.

Obviously, no research has been done in the developed world to see if there is a parallel here. Indeed, the ONLY reason that discovery was made in developing countries was because the high titer Edmonston measles vaccines (subsequently abandoned) resulted in excess all cause mortality, and they wanted to find out why. Had not that disaster occurred, they might never have discovered that measles infection actually reduced all cause mortality in the real world and that it’s something worth having.

Therefore it could be said that measles does something worthwhile.

Now, back to the book under attack.

“Here’s how to turn a children’s book into a hysterical controversy. Just declare any positive discussion of the benefits of childhood illness to be so evil that censorship is the only possible response. As a librarian, I’m shocked to find so-called “skeptics” advocating book banning. Why do they think this book has to be banned? Because the book in question tells the story of a little girl experiencing a mild case of measles. Here is an excellent review by PhD Immunologist, Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, which gives a carefully referenced overview of measles and backs up Melanie’s Marvelous Measles with the scientific facts.”

Today I'm tipping my hat to John Horgan, a blogger who writes for Scientific American, for his extraordinary article entitled Dear "Skeptics," Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More.

In his article, Horgan rightly points out that today's so-called "science skeptics" are little more than dogmatic tribal cultists (my words, not Horgan's) who celebrate "skeptical" thinking concerning their selected philosophical targets while vehemently denying anyone's right to question their own beliefs on things like breast cancer screening, vaccine safety, global warming and genetically engineered foods.

As Horgan eloquently explains in his piece, real skeptics are skeptical of everything, not just selected topics that are targeted by the madness of status quo science crowds (i.e. the "cult of scientism").

Real skepticism means questioning everything... especially the status quo
A real skeptic, in other words, would bring critical thinking to all of our science narratives and cultural beliefs, including those that cover the origin of the universe (cosmology), the origin of the human species, the nature of consciousness, the long history of indigenous botanical medicine, the cancer industry and mammography, homeopathy, antidepressant drugs, water filters, the existence of God and everything else imaginable. But far too many of today's infamous "skeptics" (such as Richard Dawkins) are really just cultists who labor under the false banner of "science." And they're offensive to real critical thinkers, it turns out.

"I don’t hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists," explains Horgan. "When people like this get together, they become tribal. They pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are compared to those outside the tribe. But belonging to a tribe often makes you dumber."

I've seen this myself, on both ends of the medicine spectrum. I've seen insanely stupid pharmacology experts swear that statin drugs are such miraculous chemicals that they should be dripped into the public water supply. But I've also seen "raw foodies" at festivals swearing that their "water vortexer machines" could levitate water in defiance of the laws of gravity.

In both cases, my critical thinking alarms go haywire, and I shake my head in disbelief that so many people are so gullible, regardless of their level of academic education or technical mastery of certain subjects. A highly trained doctor with an IQ of 200 can be just as functionally stupid as a high school dropout, I've observed. In fact, when it comes to medicine and health, many so-called "experts" are so ignorant of reality that they almost seem cognitively retarded.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observation of all species tells us that there is an instinct in mothers to protect their young.

That's something which could only be said by someone who knows nothing whatsoever about animal behavior. Less than 1% (that's one percent; not a typo) of known animal species display anything at all resembling maternal (or paternal) care.

Maternal/paternal behavior of any sort is -- by a huge margin -- the exception in animals, not the rule.

__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observation of all species tells us that there is an instinct in mothers to protect their young.

That's something which could only be said by someone who knows nothing whatsoever about animal behavior. Less than 1% (that's one percent; not a typo) of known animal species display anything at all resembling maternal (or paternal) care.

Maternal/paternal behavior of any sort is -- by a huge margin -- the exception in animals, not the rule.

I don't know where you get your information, but if that were true many species would die out.

Scientists Rush to Understand the Murderous Mamas of the Monkey World
By Jeffrey Kluger Wednesday, June 15, 2011

For any species hoping to survive in the wild, the lifetime to-do list is agreeably brief: eat, mate, defend your turf and, above all, protect your young. It's that last one that seems the most primally encoded, and for good reason: it's hardly possible to pass on your genes if your babies die before they're old enough to have offspring of their own. And yet not only do animals sometimes fail to protect the young of their species — they often kill them themselves.

Infanticide is disturbingly common in nature. It's typically committed by males that take over a pride or pack and kill whatever babies are present to make room for the ones they plan to father. It's not nearly as common for parents to behave murderously toward their own babies, and it's much rarer still for a mother to be the attacker — especially among primates. Now a study in the journal Primates has revealed that in a species of monkey known as mustached tamarins, the mamas can be a deadly menace indeed — and their infanticidal tendencies can provide some insight into human behavior too.

(See pictures of the primate species facing extinction.)
Mother tamarins do not have an easy job. Gestation is long — about 150 days — and they usually have twins, and those twins are usually big. It's up to the mother to carry that double load around until the babies are old enough to navigate the forest canopy themselves. The only thing that makes the work tolerable is that tamarin troops cooperate to rear young, but the conditions have to be right. There must be plenty of males to do the protecting and provisioning, and there can't be too many other females with babies of their own that also require attention.

An international team of researchers led by primatologist Laurence Culot of the University of Liège, in Belgium, ventured into the Amazonian lowlands of Peru to observe four troops of wild mustached tamarins to determine what distinguishes the babies that survive infancy from the ones that don't. The data they collected made those differences immediately clear.

When there were at least three assisting males in the troop, the researchers found, the survival rate for infants was an impressive 75%; when there were two or fewer males, the number fell to 42%. When a mother-to-be was the only gestating female in a group, the baby she gave birth to had an 80% chance of surviving at least three months. When there were two or more pregnancies, that forecast plunged to just 20%. "Births must be spaced by three months or more," the authors wrote, "in order to allow efficient helping behavior."

(Watch a video about langurs being trained in India.)
Some of the deaths that resulted from bad spacing or inadequate helpers were accidental or from unknown causes. But in a number of cases the researchers observed, infanticide was to blame. And unlike mothers in the marmoset, meerkat and social-carnivore species who kill the competing females' offspring, the tamarins killed their own. In some cases, a baby would fall from a tree and receive only indifferent care when it hit the ground — which suggested that the mother either dropped it deliberately or wasn't much concerned when it fell accidentally.

In one especially gruesome case, the mother killed her baby with a bite to the head, then devoured its brain and part of its upper body — a quick protein hit that she then went to sleep off. At the time of the killing, there were fewer than three helper males in the group, and another female was just a month away from giving birth to her own babies. "Before that," the authors wrote, "the perpetrator had given birth to twins three times successfully when four or five adult or subadult males were present in the group."

The explanation for such pitiless behavior is as cold as it is unavoidable: tamarin mothers are simply very good at balancing their genetic ledgers and know when they're heading for a loss. If they're raising babies that have a poor chance of surviving anyway, why make a pointless investment of time, resources and calories trying to keep them alive? Better to cut their losses, bag the babies and wait for a better season to breed.

(See the top 10 evil animals.)
Humans recoil at such stark genetic number crunching, but while infanticide among our species is socially and criminally proscribed, it does happen — and far too often. And when mothers are the perps, they are often facing some of the same kinds of pressures as the tamarins: uncertain resources (read: money) and an absent or unreliable male. The overwhelming share of mothers in such situations do nothing so heinous as killing their babies, but one provocative 1999 study argued that postpartum depression (PPD) is an adaptive strategy to achieve the same genetic culling by different means.

Anthropologist Edward Hagen of the University of California at Santa Barbara, who conducted the work, looked at all of the things his sample group of PPD mothers had in common and was able to rule out some of the obvious variables, such as unemployment or lack of education. Repeatedly, he found that the two things that correlated the most strongly were the health of the infant and the amount of child-care support the mother was getting. "Mothers with PPD mother less," Hagen wrote in his paper. Their depression informs them "that they have suffered a reproductive cost and that successfully motivates them to reduce that cost." (The heat Hagen took for a study that put so unsettling a spin on a psychological condition for which mothers themselves are not to blame discouraged him from pursuing the line of inquiry much further.)

Clearly, depressed or unsupported mothers have options tamarins don't, and in our species at least, nothing excuses willful neglect, never mind murder. But excusing something is not the same as explaining it. We may be the highest of the primates, but we remain members of that sometimes brutish club, and our lower cousins still do have plenty to teach us.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observation of all species tells us that there is an instinct in mothers to protect their young.

That's something which could only be said by someone who knows nothing whatsoever about animal behavior. Less than 1% (that's one percent; not a typo) of known animal species display anything at all resembling maternal (or paternal) care.

Maternal/paternal behavior of any sort is -- by a huge margin -- the exception in animals, not the rule.

I don't know where you get your information, but if that were true many species would die out.

Scientists Rush to Understand the Murderous Mamas of the Monkey World
By Jeffrey Kluger Wednesday, June 15, 2011

For any species hoping to survive in the wild, the lifetime to-do list is agreeably brief: eat, mate, defend your turf and, above all, protect your young. It's that last one that seems the most primally encoded, and for good reason: it's hardly possible to pass on your genes if your babies die before they're old enough to have offspring of their own. And yet not only do animals sometimes fail to protect the young of their species — they often kill them themselves.

Infanticide is disturbingly common in nature. It's typically committed by males that take over a pride or pack and kill whatever babies are present to make room for the ones they plan to father. It's not nearly as common for parents to behave murderously toward their own babies, and it's much rarer still for a mother to be the attacker — especially among primates. Now a study in the journal Primates has revealed that in a species of monkey known as mustached tamarins, the mamas can be a deadly menace indeed — and their infanticidal tendencies can provide some insight into human behavior too.

(See pictures of the primate species facing extinction.)
Mother tamarins do not have an easy job. Gestation is long — about 150 days — and they usually have twins, and those twins are usually big. It's up to the mother to carry that double load around until the babies are old enough to navigate the forest canopy themselves. The only thing that makes the work tolerable is that tamarin troops cooperate to rear young, but the conditions have to be right. There must be plenty of males to do the protecting and provisioning, and there can't be too many other females with babies of their own that also require attention.

An international team of researchers led by primatologist Laurence Culot of the University of Liège, in Belgium, ventured into the Amazonian lowlands of Peru to observe four troops of wild mustached tamarins to determine what distinguishes the babies that survive infancy from the ones that don't. The data they collected made those differences immediately clear.

When there were at least three assisting males in the troop, the researchers found, the survival rate for infants was an impressive 75%; when there were two or fewer males, the number fell to 42%. When a mother-to-be was the only gestating female in a group, the baby she gave birth to had an 80% chance of surviving at least three months. When there were two or more pregnancies, that forecast plunged to just 20%. "Births must be spaced by three months or more," the authors wrote, "in order to allow efficient helping behavior."

(Watch a video about langurs being trained in India.)
Some of the deaths that resulted from bad spacing or inadequate helpers were accidental or from unknown causes. But in a number of cases the researchers observed, infanticide was to blame. And unlike mothers in the marmoset, meerkat and social-carnivore species who kill the competing females' offspring, the tamarins killed their own. In some cases, a baby would fall from a tree and receive only indifferent care when it hit the ground — which suggested that the mother either dropped it deliberately or wasn't much concerned when it fell accidentally.

In one especially gruesome case, the mother killed her baby with a bite to the head, then devoured its brain and part of its upper body — a quick protein hit that she then went to sleep off. At the time of the killing, there were fewer than three helper males in the group, and another female was just a month away from giving birth to her own babies. "Before that," the authors wrote, "the perpetrator had given birth to twins three times successfully when four or five adult or subadult males were present in the group."

The explanation for such pitiless behavior is as cold as it is unavoidable: tamarin mothers are simply very good at balancing their genetic ledgers and know when they're heading for a loss. If they're raising babies that have a poor chance of surviving anyway, why make a pointless investment of time, resources and calories trying to keep them alive? Better to cut their losses, bag the babies and wait for a better season to breed.

(See the top 10 evil animals.)
Humans recoil at such stark genetic number crunching, but while infanticide among our species is socially and criminally proscribed, it does happen — and far too often. And when mothers are the perps, they are often facing some of the same kinds of pressures as the tamarins: uncertain resources (read: money) and an absent or unreliable male. The overwhelming share of mothers in such situations do nothing so heinous as killing their babies, but one provocative 1999 study argued that postpartum depression (PPD) is an adaptive strategy to achieve the same genetic culling by different means.

Anthropologist Edward Hagen of the University of California at Santa Barbara, who conducted the work, looked at all of the things his sample group of PPD mothers had in common and was able to rule out some of the obvious variables, such as unemployment or lack of education. Repeatedly, he found that the two things that correlated the most strongly were the health of the infant and the amount of child-care support the mother was getting. "Mothers with PPD mother less," Hagen wrote in his paper. Their depression informs them "that they have suffered a reproductive cost and that successfully motivates them to reduce that cost." (The heat Hagen took for a study that put so unsettling a spin on a psychological condition for which mothers themselves are not to blame discouraged him from pursuing the line of inquiry much further.)

Clearly, depressed or unsupported mothers have options tamarins don't, and in our species at least, nothing excuses willful neglect, never mind murder. But excusing something is not the same as explaining it. We may be the highest of the primates, but we remain members of that sometimes brutish club, and our lower cousins still do have plenty to teach us.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Mothers have a God given instinct to protect their children (barring the few that are emotionally ill) that goes far beyond what these "scientific" studies can prove. If there were no dangers to vaccines, mothers would not be fighting the most important fight of their lives. They would willingly stand in line to get their children vaccinated. But they have done their due diligence and know there is more to this issue than meets the eye. Mothers now are armed with more information and they are not going to be bamboozled any longer. Unfortunately, when something goes wrong the manufacturers are not held accountable. It is the families that will have to live with the injuries their children attained for the rest of their lives.

Awesome post - classic peacegirl. Slightly weaselly (maternal instinct is kind of magic unless you have to explain why you think so and in what way it is magic), full of meaningless generalities about mean corporations, essentially irrational (if vaccines weren't dangerous, there would not be anti-vaxxer mums and their magic maternal instincts!) and all delivered as a manipulative emotional appeal (won't anyone THINK of the BABBIES!).

And of course we still do not know if the lower infant mortality rate in the Nordic countries and Switzerland could have something to do with their higher vaccination rates. Strange! Because it was a source of concern about the possible dangers of vaccination before?

I guess you didn't read what I posted. Show me where these numbers have dramatically changed in 7 years.

Whoops! Mortality drops by nearly 10% in stead of rising. Surely that is not why they picked older data when newer data was available though?

But oh dear, it seems that is not all that is wrong with that study. It only looks at what it calls "mandatory" vaccines (they actually are not mandatory) which is basically the vaccines that a country strongly recommends and will have included in most basic ante-natal care tracks.

It does not look at the actual uptake of those vaccines. Or at vaccines that are recommended but not considered first priority, and their uptake level.

It also leaves out the UK. One wonders why? Surely not because they have 20 vaccines that would fall under their "mandatory header", a lower rate of autism and a lower child mortality rate? Cherry-picking data? Sounds more like something all those corrupt scientists do, not these concerned mums with an axe to grind!

Then the prevalence data for some parts is from the 90's... but it is looking for effects of a 2006 vaccine schedule.

This study is generally disavowed even by anti-vaxxers because it is so obviously flawed it gives them a bad name. I have even seen people wonder if it was published for that reason as a false flag operation.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

LOL wait I called it a study. See how they get you? They actually got me to glorify that pile of nonsense with the name of study! It isn't! It is something that tries to look like one - badly. It is a study in the same way that a 2-year old's scribblings are a novel.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observation of all species tells us that there is an instinct in mothers to protect their young.

That's something which could only be said by someone who knows nothing whatsoever about animal behavior. Less than 1% (that's one percent; not a typo) of known animal species display anything at all resembling maternal (or paternal) care.

Maternal/paternal behavior of any sort is -- by a huge margin -- the exception in animals, not the rule.

I don't know where you get your information, but if that were true many species would die out.

Your ignorance is showing, big time. (So is Jeffrey Kluger's, but then, Time is hardly a science journal. One of the favorite pastimes in Science Departments at colleges and universities around the country is to give students copies of articles from journals like Time in order to see how many egregious errors the students can find.)

The vast, OVERWHELMING majority of animal species display no parental care whatsoever. In the overwhelming majority of animal species, females lay their eggs and then leave. The offspring are left entirely to their own devices. Pick up any Zoology textbook, if you doubt that. Or, you know, observe the reproductive behavior of any animal that isn't a bird or mammal.

Mammals and birds are probably the only animal groups in which the majority of species show parental care. A few reptiles do; some fishes do; some cephalopod mollusks do; a few arachnids do -- but to an overwhelming extent, animals don't provide any care whatsoever for their young. Indeed, in a great many species, adults routinely prey upon young of their own species whenever they happen to encounter them.

You think that human behavior is somehow typical of non-human species? That may be the most idiotic belief yet.

__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Mothers have a God given instinct to protect their children (barring the few that are emotionally ill) that goes far beyond what these "scientific" studies can prove. If there were no dangers to vaccines, mothers would not be fighting the most important fight of their lives. They would willingly stand in line to get their children vaccinated. But they have done their due diligence and know there is more to this issue than meets the eye. Mothers now are armed with more information and they are not going to be bamboozled any longer. Unfortunately, when something goes wrong the manufacturers are not held accountable. It is the families that will have to live with the injuries their children attained for the rest of their lives.

Awesome post - classic peacegirl. Slightly weaselly (maternal instinct is kind of magic unless you have to explain why you think so and in what way it is magic), full of meaningless generalities about mean corporations, essentially irrational (if vaccines weren't dangerous, there would not be anti-vaxxer mums and their magic maternal instincts!) and all delivered as a manipulative emotional appeal (won't anyone THINK of the BABBIES!).

And of course we still do not know if the lower infant mortality rate in the Nordic countries and Switzerland could have something to do with their higher vaccination rates. Strange! Because it was a source of concern about the possible dangers of vaccination before?

I guess you didn't read what I posted. Show me where these numbers have dramatically changed in 7 years.

Whoops! Mortality drops by nearly 10% in stead of rising. Surely that is not why they picked older data when newer data was available though?

But oh dear, it seems that is not all that is wrong with that study. It only looks at what it calls "mandatory" vaccines (they actually are not mandatory) which is basically the vaccines that a country strongly recommends and will have included in most basic ante-natal care tracks.

It does not look at the actual uptake of those vaccines. Or at vaccines that are recommended but not considered first priority, and their uptake level.

It also leaves out the UK. One wonders why? Surely not because they have 20 vaccines that would fall under their "mandatory header", a lower rate of autism and a lower child mortality rate? Cherry-picking data? Sounds more like something all those corrupt scientists do, not these concerned mums with an axe to grind!

Then the prevalence data for some parts is from the 90's... but it is looking for effects of a 2006 vaccine schedule.

This study is generally disavowed even by anti-vaxxers because it is so obviously flawed it gives them a bad name. I have even seen people wonder if it was published for that reason as a false flag operation.

Once again you sure know how to pick em PG!

Studies show that the countries with the most vaccines have the worst infant death rate

UK Scraps Pneumonia Vaccines Because They ‘Don’t Work’

by Dr. Mercola

The United States requires infants to receive 26 vaccines (the most in the world) yet more than 6 U.S. infants die per every 1,000 live births. In contrast, Sweden and Japan administer 12 vaccines to infants, the least amount, and report less than 3 deaths per 1,000 live births.

The study also found evidence that some infant deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may actually be vaccine-related.

According to a recent press release:

The current study by Miller and Goldman, “Infant Mortality Rates Regressed Against Number of Vaccine Doses Routinely Given: Is There a Biochemical or Synergistic Toxicity?” found a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.This raises an important question: Would fewer vaccines administered to infants reduce the number of infant deaths?

Other study findings:

The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country; yet 33 nations have better infant mortality rates. Some infant deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may be due to over-vaccination.

Progress on reducing infant deaths should include monitoring immunization schedules and official causes of death (to determine if vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified). Infant mortality rates will remain high in developing nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care.

At times it is later revealed that vaccines are not even effective. For instance, pneumonia vaccinations for people over 65 are soon to be halted by the UK government, on the grounds that the injections do not save lives.

Millions of people were injected with the vaccine, which was supposed to offer ten-year protection against an infection that causes pneumonia. But independent expert government advisors say the program has had ‘no discernible impact’ on rates of pneumococcal disease.

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observation of all species tells us that there is an instinct in mothers to protect their young.

That's something which could only be said by someone who knows nothing whatsoever about animal behavior. Less than 1% (that's one percent; not a typo) of known animal species display anything at all resembling maternal (or paternal) care.

Maternal/paternal behavior of any sort is -- by a huge margin -- the exception in animals, not the rule.

I don't know where you get your information, but if that were true many species would die out.

Yeah, Lone Ranger! And it's well known that over 95% of the species that have ever lived on this planet are still here! Either that or the other way around! YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT.

__________________"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Vaccines have destroyed lives for decades and the UK Government tried to cover it up

06/16/2010

Recently the world has been told about the six ‘little women‘ with big voices, these ladies were dubbed the ‘little women’ by the FDA because they dared to take their concerns regarding the Gardasil vaccine and confront the FDA with them, in the form of a powerpoint presentation. For more about these outstanding women please read their amazing story which I highlighted in March on the American Chronicle. HPV wonder vaccines now under intense scrutiny by the FDA … Sadly for the FDA this rather derogatory term has now made their story a known worldwide.

I am now going to add another totally amazing and outstanding women to those six and make it seven, her name is Rosemary Fox MBE. Little is known outside the UK about Rosemary Fox and her fight with the UK Government to get compensation for vaccine damaged children but times are changing and the truth about what really goes on behind closed doors is being exposed.

I will begin by giving a brief synopsis of the Rosemary Fox story from her own book.

Taken from the first page of Rosemary Fox’s amazing book Helen’s Story: Amazon.co.uk: Rosemary Fox: Books

“In September 1962, Rosemary Fox took her eight-,month-old daughter Helen to the doctor’s to be vaccinated against polio, blissfully unaware that she was condemning her happy, healthy baby to a life of sickness and convulsions. In 1973, when Helen was assessed as having the mental age of just three, Rosemary began a campaign for compensation for vaccine damaged children. It would take 27 years.

Back in 1973, the British Governments view was that the severe damage caused to some children by smallpox, polio, or measles vaccinations was a small price from freedom of disease, and those cases received little publicity. Rosemary and 600 families with whom she formed The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children were condemned for causing the public to question the safety of vaccination.”

To read any more I suggest that interested parties buy her book.

Thirty seven years on and not a lot has changed in regards to the distorted thinking of Governments worldwide but Rosemary did change the laws around compensation for vaccine injured children, her fight although far from easy was certainly not fruitless.

Letters bounced to and fro from Rosemary’s organisation for years and the content was at times heated but what went on internally was little more than criminal. Sadly I cannot publish these documents because copyright would be impossible to get but I can publish small sections and refer the public to the address and website of where these can be obtained.

I was introduced to Mrs Fox by Prof Gordon Stewart and pointed in the direction of where information had been recently released to the public, by an interested party. I have since had conversations with Mrs Fox and she was kind enough to tell me about her story.

I will begin my interpretation of what went on, with a few quotes from a letter written by Mr R P Pole to a Mr Foster on 26th July 1976.

The letter can be obtained in full from the National Archives in Kew Gardens, Richmond, Surrey, England UK website The National Archives

Mr Pole was a member of the JCVI and represented the Department of Health

The letter was headed – Mrs Fox’s claim to the European Commission on Human Rights

In his letter Mr Pole was discussing a meeting he was about to attend between Department of Health lawyers, the Foreign Office lawyer, and Parliamentary Council.

In Point 3 he says

“Can we produce an example of a consent form actually in use, Do different authorities have different ways of getting consent?”

Interesting phrasing don’t you agree, especially as he worked for the Department of Health and represented them in meetings of the JCVI, please refer to Gi/TO NOT POR PUBLICATION CHSC(VI)(1977) THIRD MEETING CENTRAL … for an example of his activity already on the internet? It appears from his comment that Mr Pole had no clue as to whether consent forms even existed, let alone how they may be implemented.

However, for me, the real gem in his letter was contained within point 5.

Point 5

“To what extent do we dispute what Mrs Fox claims? We should consider her case sentence by sentence.”

Well, that would certainly be a good place to start, don’t you agree? The icing on the cake however, was what he wrote next.

“Do we admit any part of her claim?”

This for me highlights the real truth of the behaviour, lies and sheer arrogance of what goes on behind closed doors. This is what parents of vaccine injured children are really fighting.

So what did. Rosemary Fox claim? In effect Mrs Fox’s report to the government was a fair and well executed document. It was balanced and well written and showed she understood what she believed to be the benefits of vaccination.

In a report 13th August 1974 entitled

The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children

An outline of the case for compensation for vaccine damaged children.

She wrote:-

“Every year a few children are destroyed by immunisation and vaccination. These are vaccine damaged children – a minority group who suffer brain damage and sometimes death from a procedure which confers a very great benefit on the majority.

The last public statement (DHSS) regarding compensation for these children is that would be neither appropriate or feasible. This report sets out why we, the parents of these children, feel that not only is compensation appropriate but that it is long overdue and that, if the immunisation scheme is to continue on the moral basis , a compensation scheme is now a matter of urgency.

This Association has compiled details of approximately 220 children who were seriously ill following vaccination and who are now brain damaged, physically handicapped, blind, dumb, epileptic, – which disabilities occur in the children either singly or in a combination.

When cases of damage from all vaccines were being compiled, it became obvious that two out of every three cases the ‘triple antigen’ vaccination was involved.”

Later in the report she writes:-

“The DHSS states that brain damage following vaccination can arise in some cases due to an incompatibility between the child and the vaccine, and this risk is now freely admitted.”

She speaks of a booklet that was circulated to all doctors called ‘Immunisation against Infectious Diseases’ and says –

“In the introduction of this booklet, however, it is stated “It should be emphasised that it is always for the individual doctor to decide finally on the type, dosage and timing of the vaccines he uses.”

The investigations of this Association have revealed that there are many instances where this advice booklet is not known or followed and, so far as we can ascertain, little attention is paid to the medical history of each child to ensure that vaccination for each child will be safe. We are aware that until recently many doctors did not know, or could not accept, that whooping cough vaccination could cause brain damage.”

She states very clearly and underlines “Risks have been concealed from parents” she carries on-

“It has been said that until recently there has been a ‘conspiracy of silence’ about the risks in whooping cough vaccination (Hansard 31 st January 1974) and out investigations support this statement.

When whooping cough vaccination was first introduced on a trial basis, it was offered to parents as “effective for the prevention of whooping cough” and the vaccines were said to be “the best which are available” (City of Liverpool in conjunction with the Medical Council -leaflet issued 1953) There was no mention of the risk and no clear indication that this was a trial.”

Does this all remind us of anything? It does me, this reminds me very much of the current Gardasil campaign. Please read HPV wonder vaccines now under intense scrutiny by the FDA … and our six little women.

So basically Rosemary Fox was saying that once again the UK government were advertising a vaccine that was on TRIAL and portraying it as safe and effective. It seems to me that history repeats itself over and over decade after decade.